More than any other single factor, the rise of Donald Trump is attributable to the failed Obama presidency. It is wrong to suggest the Trump phenomenon is a Republican Frankenstein. Trump’s rise is mostly fueled by the extraordinary failure, uncertainty and fear wrought by the Obama presidency.

I wrote in September that there would be a market in 2016 for a candidate who is stylistically different from President Obama. I wrote, “Trump is by far the most visible, well-known, truly anti-Obama actor so far. He is crass, loud, brash, insulting, vulgar and demeaning — and I think that contrast is what has gotten everybody’s attention.” Even I didn’t know how true that was when I wrote it; that there would be such a desperate appetite for a candidate who is opposite from Obama in every way that a character like Trump could flourish.

While all the Republican candidates can make the case that they are wildly different from Obama, starting with their philosophical approach, let’s face it: Some are more different than others. And undoubtedly, the other campaigns regret that they did not realize earlier that the “anti-Obama” personified by Trump should be taken seriously.

Back in September, I thought perhaps a guy like Mike Huckabee could emerge as a plausible candidate who would offer a sharp contrast with Obama, but part of what I missed was how angry Republican voters had become. As conservative as his policy positions may be, the former Arkansas governor just isn’t what many Republicans want to see in the way of a fist-shaking, blow-up-the-house, curse-your-enemies style that suggests a complete break from all things Obama. As proof of this hypothesis, I ask: After Trump, who comes across as the most angry among the Republicans? Answer: Probably Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Who is the least angry? Probably Jeb Bush. Anyway, Obama’s imperial presidency has gone beyond “Washington knows best” — he has effectively declared “Obama knows best” — and has repeatedly circumvented the law and Congress with his dictates and executive actions. It has created a rage among voters that a candidate with classic good skills and reasonable conservative positions cannot pacify.

Obviously, many rank-and-file Republicans are discouraged that Republicans in Congress haven’t been able to dictate policies to Obama, or govern as if the White House doesn’t exist. But it is anger and fear at what Obama has done that are driving campaign 2016, more than anything the Republicans have (or have not) accomplished.

Meanwhile, among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the only Obama administration alumna in the race, has problems that start with the fact that there is no call for a third Obama term. Democratic voters also want something different. And if you had to set a contrast with Obama but still keep a Democratic patina, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the most vivid alternative for those who are looking for something new. Clinton has twisted her campaign to where rather than becoming a fresh contrast, she has to embrace Obama to try to hang on to his most loyal voters, particularly African Americans — and in doing so, she pledges to be the keeper of his flame, which makes it hard to claim she is anything other than an Obama third term. Obviously she has other problems, but her weakness starts with the fact that she cannot break from Obama.

Strange but true: If Barack Obama had been a better president, Donald Trump would be weaker and Hillary Clinton would be stronger.